Maybe I need to give up trying to generalize reactions. Fans were divided and general moviegoers were divided. End of story.

So many people I expected would hate it ended up liking it, and vice versa. I still cannot believe my dad didn't hate it. He has a hard time staying awake for just about any movie, he hates it when movies are longer than 2 hours, and doesn't like complicated plots. He actually liked it.

I look at the movie as just that - a movie adaptation. I look at the graphic novel as a graphic novel.

I really liked the movie. I think it got lots of things "right" but I understand the "whys" of the deviations. I like Snyder as a filmmaker and I understand and agree with many of his choices.

totally agree, the movie was never going to be a panel for panel adaptation, that would be impossible, and i think snyder made a lot of good choices about which bits he kept in and which bits he lost or changed, things like Sally's attempted rape and Hollis' murder are things other film makers might have left out, DM's time on mars would have probably been made shorter to pander to an ADD audience, but snyder recognised their power, and the fact it's scenes like that that make watchmen what it is, (rather than superficial stuff like the Squid, when the SQuID works equally well, and is much more concise), and kept them in

_________________We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script.

I can't really remember what specifically prompted me to read Watchmen as I was never a big comic book reader, but, ironically, it may very well have been this movie. I found out about the movie around the time I found out about Watchmen itself. People were talking about Watchmen being unfilmable, while saying it was the greatest graphic novel of all time. Finally, after flipping through it every once and awhile at the bookstore (ruining several twists in the process), I broke down and bought the graphic novel. After reading it, I then started spending time on the Watchmen board at IMDb, along with several other WCM members, eventually finding myself joining this site. It was visiting this site, when it was at its busiest, that I developed a big admiration for Watchmen (the graphic novel).

To date I have only seen the Watchmen movie once, and that was in the theatre. I'm probably not going to check out any of the longer versions, mostly because this was a movie I was never really big on in the first place, and all I'd be getting is more stuff to not like. I think I'm of two minds regarding Watchmen as a comic book series, and as a movie. One, I think this could have been a better movie. I know Curi will chime in and say "this was really the best movie we were going to get", but that doesn't cut it for me. So on one hand I think another director, with another cast, could have made a more enjoyable movie for me. On the other hand, there's a part of me that thinks Watchmen wasn't meant to be adapted to film. In my opinion it's not the story or characters that make Watchmen great, it's how the story is told. Once you change the medium the story is told in, you change much of its appeal. You can say that the movie should be enjoyed as a work in its own right, but that's impossible for me to do.

_________________

"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."

'Watchmen' doesn't feature in either, which reinforces the general feeling of 'Meh', that - in my experience - surrounds this film.

I think listing the metecritic thing as proof for "meh" is misplaced, if anything it just as easily backs up the "some loved it, some hated it" theory.If you look here http://www.metacritic.com/movie/watchmen you can see it got 19 positive reviews out of 39, 5 of which were 100%, and 3 right at the bottom with 20%,

_________________We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script.

'Watchmen' doesn't feature in either, which reinforces the general feeling of 'Meh', that - in my experience - surrounds this film.

I think listing the metecritic thing as proof for "meh" is misplaced, if anything it just as easily backs up the "some loved it, some hated it" theory.If you look here http://www.metacritic.com/movie/watchmen you can see it got 19 positive reviews out of 39, 5 of which were 100%, and 3 right at the bottom with 20%,

My comment was simply based on the Best/Worst list results; that fact that it appears on neither list - it's not one of the best, and not one of the worst - reinforces the general indifference that seems to surround this film, in my experience.

'Watchmen' doesn't feature in either, which reinforces the general feeling of 'Meh', that - in my experience - surrounds this film.

I think listing the metecritic thing as proof for "meh" is misplaced, if anything it just as easily backs up the "some loved it, some hated it" theory.If you look here http://www.metacritic.com/movie/watchmen you can see it got 19 positive reviews out of 39, 5 of which were 100%, and 3 right at the bottom with 20%,

My comment was simply based on the Best/Worst list results; that fact that it appears on neither list - it's not one of the best, and not one of the worst - reinforces the general indifference that seems to surround this film, in my experience.

I suppose Sin City must be a "meh" film too since it is on neither list.

_________________Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?

'Watchmen' doesn't feature in either, which reinforces the general feeling of 'Meh', that - in my experience - surrounds this film.

I think listing the metecritic thing as proof for "meh" is misplaced, if anything it just as easily backs up the "some loved it, some hated it" theory.If you look here http://www.metacritic.com/movie/watchmen you can see it got 19 positive reviews out of 39, 5 of which were 100%, and 3 right at the bottom with 20%,

My comment was simply based on the Best/Worst list results; that fact that it appears on neither list - it's not one of the best, and not one of the worst - reinforces the general indifference that seems to surround this film, in my experience.

I suppose Sin City must be a "meh" film too since it is on neither list.

You can suppose what you like; I didn't compile either list, and have no great love for 'Sin City' either, but I do not know why it - or other more popular films - was omitted.

I do know that 'Watchmen' scores in the low 50's (IIRC) on Metacritic, which also reinforces the whole feeling of 'Meh' that appears to surround it.

You do realize that tons of people loving it and tons of people hating it doesn't equal "meh", right?

Also, those lists aren't exactly definitive. I'm sure you can find tons of other lists of the exact same type hanging around that reinforce the exact opposite of the opinion you stated.

I chose Metacritic because it aggregates existing review scores as well but, as you point out, it's all irrelevant anyway since it's all opinion and none of these lists are definitive. In fact, that kind of makes the OP irrelevant too. In fact, that kind of makes most of this sub-forum irrelevant doesn't it, since we're discussing opinions?

Or, since we're discussing opinions, shall we just accept that a site like Metacritic which collates lots of opinions and aggregates numerical scores to give an overall score is a pretty fair barometer for general opinions, or reactions?

ETA: I didn't actually say that loads of people hating/liking it makes it 'Meh' - I said the fact that it doesn't appear on either list (it's not the best; it's not the worst), and it scores low 50's aggregated (it's not bad; it's not good) all reinforces the general air of 'Meh' that already surrounds the film, in my experience.

You do realize that tons of people loving it and tons of people hating it doesn't equal "meh", right?

Also, those lists aren't exactly definitive. I'm sure you can find tons of other lists of the exact same type hanging around that reinforce the exact opposite of the opinion you stated.

I chose Metacritic because it aggregates existing review scores as well but, as you point out, it's all irrelevant anyway since it's all opinion and none of these lists are definitive. In fact, that kind of makes the OP irrelevant too. In fact, that kind of makes most of this sub-forum irrelevant doesn't it, since we're discussing opinions?

Or, since we're discussing opinions, shall we just accept that a site like Metacritic which collates lots of opinions and aggregates numerical scores to give an overall score is a pretty fair barometer for general opinions, or reactions?

ETA: I didn't actually say that loads of people hating/liking it makes it 'Meh' - I said the fact that it doesn't appear on either list (it's not the best; it's not the worst), and it scores low 50's aggregated (it's not bad; it's not good) all reinforces the general air of 'Meh' that surrounds the film, in my experience.

There's a distinct flaw with your theory here, though. You say it's "meh" because it doesn't appear on the best or worst list for either site. That's because its score on both is somewhere in the middle, but the reviews that contributed to that score are mostly either extremely positive or extremely negative.

_________________"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part."There's a cello in your house now."

"Meh" implies no intelligent engagement. Even if, as you suppose, everyone has that attitude towards the film, what meaning are we meant to derive from that? That people are stupid? Everyone knows that!

_________________

Dr. Brooklyn wrote:

it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.

You do realize that tons of people loving it and tons of people hating it doesn't equal "meh", right?

Also, those lists aren't exactly definitive. I'm sure you can find tons of other lists of the exact same type hanging around that reinforce the exact opposite of the opinion you stated.

I chose Metacritic because it aggregates existing review scores as well but, as you point out, it's all irrelevant anyway since it's all opinion and none of these lists are definitive. In fact, that kind of makes the OP irrelevant too. In fact, that kind of makes most of this sub-forum irrelevant doesn't it, since we're discussing opinions?

Or, since we're discussing opinions, shall we just accept that a site like Metacritic which collates lots of opinions and aggregates numerical scores to give an overall score is a pretty fair barometer for general opinions, or reactions?

ETA: I didn't actually say that loads of people hating/liking it makes it 'Meh' - I said the fact that it doesn't appear on either list (it's not the best; it's not the worst), and it scores low 50's aggregated (it's not bad; it's not good) all reinforces the general air of 'Meh' that surrounds the film, in my experience.

There's a distinct flaw with your theory here, though. You say it's "meh" because it doesn't appear on the best or worst list for either site. That's because its score on both is somewhere in the middle, but the reviews that contributed to that score are mostly either extremely positive or extremely negative.

Maybe you missed my edit, or maybe your reading comprehension isn't so good; an aggregated score of 50-odd percent doesn't mean that every review was in exact polar opposite from each other. It depends on where the quality line is drawn, but an aggregate score of 50-odd percent suggests the bad and average reviews outweigh the positive ones. Which, once again reinforces the general feeling of 'Meh', that surrounds the film, in my experience.

"Meh" implies no intelligent engagement. Even if, as you suppose, everyone has that attitude towards the film, what meaning are we meant to derive from that? That people are stupid? Everyone knows that!

No; that's what you think it implies. I - and most other people I know IRL and on forums - take 'Meh' to mean that noise you make when you shrug indifferently. You know, when you're totally indifferent to something; something which fails to make any kind of lasting impact?

The more you say "in my experience" the less experience I imagine you having. Just sayin'.

And indifference is impossible when one is actually engaged, emotionally or intellectually, in a story. So why should I give a fuck if people are incapable of that?

Have you considered that - based on general reviews and opinions of the film - the director may be the one incapable of telling the story in a way that engages the viewer emotionally or intellectually?